| Streakfury |
I'm neither for Bush nor against him, but I think it'd be far more beneficial to a country if they had the same leader for a substantial period of time (unless they're a dictator, of course). That way, the current government/president/prime minister could see through their promises to make the country better. Whereas if a new leader is elected every four years, all of the initiatives etc that get started by the previous leader are gonna be scrapped, which means the taxpayers have forked out millions and millions of pounds or dollars or whatever to pay for a scheme that wont be followed through to the end, and so nobody benefits.
I think a leader should stay in power for as long as it takes him or her to do the things that they promise to do for a country. After that, they should either be elected again, or they should make way for a new leader who'll build on the previous leader's success.
:) |
|
|
